CC: Bigelow predicts, dishes
I know some people here dismiss certain local reporters out of hand. But anyway. Pete Bigelow, who covers the team for AA.com, just predicted (via live-chat) that Harbaugh will take over for RR on January 4th. That's the day after the Orange Bowl.
(Caveat: Bigelow very clearly emphasized that this is merely his gut sense. He also stated that, although he can see it both ways, he'd give RR a fourth year.)
He also stated that, if Harbaugh does indeed take over, he would not install a hybrid offense; he would install the pro-set a la Stanford. As such, Bigelow said, JH would really have to sell Denard in order to keep him.
Here was the dishy news item: Bigelow said he interviewed several players following the bust-dinner. His words: "95 percent of them were stunned -- yes, stunned -- by what took place there."
December 28th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
Yeah, Andrew Luck had over 500 yards rushing this year, about the same ypc as Denard, IIRC. Now, that's easier to do on fewer carries, but he doesn't have the speed Denard has either. In Harbaugh's system, Denard could run half as many times and still hit 1,000 yards on the season, but the offense would be more balanced.
I don't see any reason why Denard can't QB Harbaugh's system. He'd throw a little less, run a little more, hand it off about as often. I'm confident that UM 2011 offense has more talent on it than Stanford 2010, QB's aside, so we'd look pretty solid.
December 28th, 2010 at 10:35 PM ^
I'm not sure I would say Luck has more talent than Denard. I would say he throws it better and he projects to the next level better but in terms of the college game I would put denards talent against anyones. You give Denard Stnafords defense and win him 3-4 more games and he may have won the Heisman. They are hard to compare because they have different skillsets but I wouldn't say that Luck is far above Denard in terms of talent.
December 28th, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
The main difference in my mind is lining up under center or in the shotgun. If you line up under center, Denard starts the play running backward. If you line up in shotgun, he starts by running in the direction he would be running, either off tackle or sweep.
I know that we will mix it up and that we did mix it up this year, but how many times did Denard run after lining up under center? Not very many. I'm just saying that there is no way that we line up under center 90% of the time if Denard is our QB, which is what Bigelow seemed to be implying.
December 28th, 2010 at 10:42 PM ^
I think that is what he is implying as well, but in any case it's an innacurate implication since Harbaugh uses multiple formations including shotgun and spread concepts. I won't say that Harbaugh is going to come in and run the same offense we have this year, but to say with definity that he won't is somewhat ignorant. IMO, if you come in and don't make an effort to use Denard as your QB, your insane especially considering that we don't have a pro style QB on the roster. Maybe Tate or Devin could be that but could they do better in that system than Denard could doing the same things he did this year? I don't think so.
December 28th, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^
I don't care what kind of Offence he runs as long as we win and start beating OSU and MSU again. Like it supposed to be GO BLUE
December 28th, 2010 at 8:37 PM ^
And if RR had managed to beat OSU or MSU ever we wouldn't be reading these CC threads.
December 28th, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^
Its to the point now that I'm going to be dissapointed no matter what happens after the bowl game. Absolutely no one is going to come out of this looking good.
December 28th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
Funny you said that, because I was thinking the exact same thing over the weekend.
From the PSU game onward, I have been a believer that RR is just not the right guy for Michigan - great guy, offensive innovator, good coach, but he will never be able to escape the dark cloud he has been under since ariving in AA.
I maintained this belief throughout the entire season. However, in reading these boards, talking to friends and just obsessing over the issue, I have almost convinced myself that if RR is brought back, the offense improves significantly in terms of scoring against actual defenses by virtue of Denard being a year more experienced. The defense has to improve, if for no other reason that the 17 year olds gain another year of age, size and experience. And the kicking game just can't be worse, so it must improve.
So, I have convinced myself that despite thinking that RR is probably not the right guy for M, we might be better off keeping him.
Now, if he is fired, I am going to be disappointed because we could be very good next year (we could also be terrible). And, if he is retained, I will be disappointed because I can't deal with another year of the struggling and "coaching hot seat."
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking.
December 28th, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^
I just want to be good now -- not in like 2-3 more years. Keeping Rich is probably the fastest way to that result. Bringing Harbaugh or Jesus himself to coach, is going to lead to more transfers, more players that are ill-fitted for the offensive scheme, and another step back.
Considering it took 3 years to get back to the happy side of .500 again, with another coaching change, I really don't feel like going through another rebuilding year or two again -- especially when the end result will most likely be the same either way. Both Harbaugh and Rodriguez can have this team winning 9,10,11 games a season again.
Basically, I don't think I have the mental fortitude to go through all of this nonsense again. Not to mention, there will be a whole new round of "oh he doesn't have the players, its been bad luck, and oh, just give him time, blah, blah, blah" that we have to listen to.
December 28th, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
is a mistake in light of what Carroll, Tressel, Stoops, Saban, and Meyer did. I do not see why a new coach could not do the same here.
<br>
<br>Frankly, the '11 schedule is so favorable to Michigan that I think 9-10 wins should be the minimum expectation.
December 28th, 2010 at 3:31 PM ^
You're kind of taking a pretty big leap there comparing Harbaugh to what Carroll, Stoops, Saban, etc did. Plus, out of all of those guys, only Meyer had a decent 1st year (9-3), everyone else was right around 6-6 or 7-5. If they brought back Rodriguez, then yes, 9-10 should be the expectation. But, if you think they can still go for 9-10 wins after bringing a whole new staff and teaching a whole new offensive/defensive system, you're probably setting the bar a little too high. Another season like we just had would be closer to the realistic expectation.
December 28th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
With RR, I would expect 8 or 9 wins.
With anyone else, I would expect 5 to 7 wins.
For 2012, RR, 9 to 11, anyone else (if Denard leaves) 7 to 9.
I think the best case scenario is a one yer hit. It could easily be two or three years. Oh, it will NOT be as bad as RR's first three years, but it will still suck.
OTOH, with RR we should expect close to 10 wins for the next three years.
December 28th, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
That's a very big difference. Why exactly do you think JH would only get 5-7 wins next fall? That seems ridiculously low. And why do you think RR is worth 3 more wins? That's a very big swing, I'm just curious why you think this.
December 28th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
Lombardi?
December 28th, 2010 at 3:21 PM ^
I heard Vince was taking the job at Maryland.
December 28th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
Interesting thoughts. The only thing that will be vastly different if a change takes place is Harbaugh will be exactly the opposite of Rich in terms of his public pronouncements and urgency. If you look at his history at San Diego and Stanford, he willingly backs himself into a corner right from the jump with ultra high expectations, doesn't give open-ended timetables for achieving them, and then pushes for meaningful results right away to build off. He would understand and likely publicly acknowledge that rebuild tear down seasons aren't tolerated at Michigan.
If those excuses you speak of are heard, they won't be from anyone but message board jockies and outsider apologists. They won't spring from the coaching staff. Everyone has an opinion, so the existence of that stuff shouldn't bother a good fan such as yourself.
As for Rich giving us 10 wins consistently, I'd feel a lot better about thinking that if we didn't get steamrolled worse in year 3 by the teams we'll need to beat to get there. I'd really like to believe you are right though, because there is a chance he'll return.
December 28th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^
You can make all the mighty proclamations you want when you're at San Diego State and taking over a 1-11 Stanford team because if you don't meet them, the general expectations are so low, that you'll get a pass for it, and a pat on the back for trying your best. At Michigan, if you come in the door and say we're going to win the Big Ten next year, and you don't get it done in year 1, or year 2, then people will label you a failure and "out of your league" right off the bat.
December 28th, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^
Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think we'd have that difficult of a transition if JH became our coach. A big reason that the RR transition was tough wasn't so much the transition, just the fact that there wasn't a lot of talent. After 2007, we lost a lot of starters, and we didn't have enough back-ups ready to step in and play. Next year, we will be returning almost all of our starters and depth at most positions.
Also, the idea that our current players would be a bad fit for JH's offense is silly. Sure, we'd have more slot-types than we need a not enough TE's. But JH will still use the slots receivers, and we'll have a 4th year starter at TE, and a couple other guys to back him up.
It might not be perfectly smooth, but I don't expect it to be crazy either.
December 28th, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^
That sounds like a good reason to keep RR. The cupboard is not bare in 2010.
December 28th, 2010 at 4:21 PM ^
I'm not arguing for or against RR, I was just commenting on how not-so-difficult a transition would be.
But I don't think your point is a good reason to keep a coach. Just because RR has a lot of talent, doesn't mean he should stay. If you think he'll win with that talent, then keep him. If you think another guy will do better with that talent, then you should probably bring him in.
December 28th, 2010 at 8:23 PM ^
...1/4, maybe 1/3 of our skill players who transfer if Rod goes?
It happens with every coaching change, regardless of the circumstances. Given Rodriguez's unique, specific approach to recruiting, I wouldn't be surprised to see even more transfers in addition to any damages in recruiting.
Just a thought
December 29th, 2010 at 1:21 AM ^
This is not true. In fact, most coaching changes aren't marked by massive attrition. What we experienced in the 2007-08 offseason was not typical.
December 28th, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
January is the month drinking, not around the holidays!
December 29th, 2010 at 1:25 AM ^
Absolutely no one is going to come out of this looking good.
Huh? If the scenario described in the OP holds true, David Brandon would be landing the hottest coach in the country next week. He'll be hailed as a mastermind.
December 28th, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^
He thinks he's getting fired, he can see it both ways, and he'd give RR another year if it were up to him.
In other words, regardless of what happens, Bigelow will simply point to one of the sentiments above, ignore the other one, and say "See how right I was?"
December 28th, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
He sound like a wannabe politician.
December 28th, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^
Who the fuck is Pete Bigelow? Seriously, I've never heard of him.
Actually, don't answer that. I don't really want to know.
December 28th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^
Pete covered the Denver Broncos and U of Colorado sports for some years...had some articles receive awards. A few columns were pretty amazing...there was one I wish I could point you to on the Oklahoma State basketball team plane crash in eastern Colorado several years back. It was an introspective, emotional look back, a year after the crash, into lives it affected from Boulder to Eastern Colorado to Okalahoma State.
While covering the Broncos, he attended every day of preseason minicamp one year and then-coach Mike Shanahan gave Pete a gift certificate to a lavish restaurant for being the beat writer with the best attendance (with the thought that he was reporting in the most fair manner with all the information).
He then went on to become the sports editor at the now defunct Ann Arbor News. Now the Michigan beat writer role at aa.com. His opinions may be just as good (or bad) as the next guy, but since he attends everything, probably more than the Detroit beat writers, his general feeling shouldn't be completely discounted. I wouldn't doubt that he did talk to 20 or more former players that attended the banquet, for example. Maybe not, but wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure DB hasn't told him what's going to happen so for the CC he's just putting a thought out there like everyone else.
I knew Pete in Colorado.
December 28th, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^
I have talked to many casual fans who became aware of the banquet through MSM and every one of them has expressed the thought that Rodriguez was trying to get fired. The theory being that he'd get the larger buyout and be able to get more opportunities in December for a new job. I personally don't buy it.
Still the struggle is trying to find an explanation for behavior that was so out of character from what we have seen publicly, and then also trying to explain his choice of that event to display it.
I prefer Jim Harbaugh come in and give us what he did at Stanford (but with better athletes), but I don't condemn Rich for the banquet deal. I just can't figure out why and why there? If his players apparently were surprised, then at least it isn't just haters piling on.
December 28th, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
I know that you are an honest, serious contributor here. You and I disagree about some things; what I think you and I agree on, is that the "casual" fans, who don't have season tickets, who get their Michigan news from the newspapers and radio (which, unsurprisingly, is a helluva lot of people), and who have few other connections to the University, would rightly despise Coach Rodriguez, if they believed even a small percentage of what their media were feeding them.
As to the Football Bust, and the reaction of many media-types, I have a personal theory. It is purely personal for me; I don't expect anybody else to accept it. But it is this; that a big part of what put many people on edge, was that the presentation, particularly surrounding Coach Rodriguez, had something of an evangelical quality to it. "Evangelical" as in evangelical Christian churches.
And that is something that would strike a lot of our current players and coaches as totally normal. But it would strike a lot of Michigan alumni, faculty and administrators, and practically all of the professional media-types, as slightly freakish, because the rest of the University is so traditionally -- I'm struggling for a word here -- academic.
There are a lot of other adjectives that could be used, none of which I'd be entirely satisfied with: liberal, secular, elitist; you get the idea. Whatever description might fit, it is just not what people who are professionally associated with the University are used to seeing or hearing. But it is, genuinely, who these guys (Rodriguez, Barwis, etc.) are.
Obviously (or maybe not so obviously, so let's make it clear), I am not making a partisan political or religious argument for or against anybody or anything. I'm making an observation about what I think is the status quo ante in the state of public/media relations.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:40 AM ^
I think it's a little simpler than that. (I'm not sure how many former Michigan football players fall into the "liberal, secular, elitist" camp.) What bothered at least some people was that they felt that RR took an event that is supposed to be focused on celebrating the achievements of the seniors and made it more about himself, pleading for his job.
December 28th, 2010 at 4:00 PM ^
"95 percent of them were stunned -- yes, stunned -- by what took place there."
It's been clarified above that he was talking about FORMER players.
Also, what % of those former players want to see RR fired?
My gut feeling is that its 100%
December 28th, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
I wonder where Rick Leach is at these days? He was the former player who seemed to be RichRod's staunchist supporter.
December 28th, 2010 at 8:54 PM ^
I've read where RR was more emotional and was speaking about how he is a Michigan Man! I have never heard about the stunning comments he made?
I would like to see RR coach for the next two seasons but my thought all along is that DB will hire JH after the Orange Bowl. There must have been some sort of 3rd party communication indicating that JH was interested in the job. I don't think these days leading up to the bowl game or the game itself will have any factor in the decision. I suppose there is a chance that an NFL team could go after JH and he may decide to go directly to the NFL. May be then RR will keep his job?
December 29th, 2010 at 8:43 AM ^
I seen this quote on the Stanford boards that John Madden made about JH " JH at UM would be to restore the program to the pinnacle that was Schembechler. To be mentioned as the equal of Schembechler would matter to Harbaugh, I think, more than money, and more than 100K fans in a stadium." I think this point has merit
December 28th, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
December 29th, 2010 at 1:49 AM ^
That line of reasoning makes it sound like GERG was the primary problem on defense. Many would argue that the larger problem is the way RR handles that side of the ball. If he continues to insist on handling positional hires and having the right to install his own defensive scheme, the DC position will continue to be a revolving door.